How Clean is your Cloud - Apple responds

Our new report “How Clean is Your Cloud” is out today - to show that the massive increase in Internet use is mainly being powered by dirty energy. Apple, Amazon and Microsoft all score badly in the report for relying on dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power for their data centres.

Since 2010, and again in 2011, we have been calling on all the major Internet companies to come clean about the amount and type of power behind the Internet services we use everyday.

In a statement issued in response to the report, Apple disclosed for the first time that the data center would consume about 20 million watts at full capacity - much lower than Greenpeace's estimate, which is 100 million watts. In territory served by Duke, a million watts is enough to power 750 to 1,000 homes.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, added that the company is building two large projects intended to offset energy use from the grid in North Carolina: an array of solar panels and a set of fuel cells.

While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centres, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data centre.

When Apple announced they were building a data centre in North Carolina, they announced a commitment to invest $1 Billion (USD) over 10 years. For a number of the facilities in the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, we made estimates of power demand using fairly conservative industry benchmarks for data centre investments: 1MW of power demand from servers for every $15 million, though the number is often closer to $8 million for many companies. Thus, a $1 billion investment should net Apple 66MW of computer power demand. Assuming a fairly standard energy efficiency factor for new data centres for non-computer energy demand of 50% gives you a 100MW data center. While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple's plans for the $1 billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.

Size Matters

The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon's chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher.

We made these estimates because companies like Apple and Amazon have not disclosed details of how much energy data centres use now and will in the future. We provided Apple with our data prior to releasing the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, and while they did not agree with our estimate, they declined to provide specific information on their energy demand.

While we welcome Apple's attempt today to provide more specific details on its North Carolina iData Center, it does not appear to have provided the full story, and is instead seeking to provide select pieces of information to make their dirty energy footprint seem smaller.

The IT industry can be a part of the solution to old-fashioned problems like emissions from coal. Some companies, like Google, Yahoo and Facebook are already doing that, by taking steps to move toward powering their clouds with clean energy, not coal or nuclear. This campaign is creating an opportunity for Apple to join them and start becoming a part of the solution to climate change, so that we can deal with emissions from the growth of 'cloud computing' before it becomes an irreversible problem. Step one in seizing this opportunity is for companies to be transparent about their energy use.

Waynie - Part of the problem is a lack of transparency. We're using the best information that's publicly available. If new, verified, information comes to light, we'll assess it and of course include it.

Are our expectations too high for these extremely profitable and innovative companies? I don't think so.

These data centers are a major growth area for energy use. It doesn't matter how efficient you make something if you scale up use vastly faster than efficiency gains.

Microsoft, Amazon and Apple all also have a track record of innovation. I have every faith they're up to the job.

"Are our expectations too high for these extremely profitable and innovative companies? I don't think so." Thanks again Andrew for prop...

"Are our expectations too high for these extremely profitable and innovative companies? I don't think so." Thanks again Andrew for proper perspective, ...and speaking of perspective, ...thanks so much Larry, I really enjoy reading your posts. Nice to see real people locked on and moving in the right direction.

"Are our expectations too high for these extremely profitable and innovative companies? I don't think so"

Nor do I - I have...

"Are our expectations too high for these extremely profitable and innovative companies? I don't think so"

Nor do I - I have a small scale hosting company that uses 100% renewable energy for the data centre and I can still make my services affordable and just about turn a profit so why couldn't these guys. Sure their energy generation needs are larger but that's just a question of scale.

Apple is a company that publicly announced that they have money in excess of $90 BILLION in money that they have no use for. I'm pretty sure that would go a long way to greening up their operations.

I'm also an Apple Fanboy so before all the usual Apple protectors come shout at me, this is not about the companies products but about their attitude to corporate social responsibility.

Let's hope campaigns like this focus the minds of Apple, Google and Microsoft and other massive datacentre power users like dropbox, hostgator and godaddy to take a more ecologically responsible approach.

To add to what Andrew has already said, we welcome this first step from Apple of disclosing its current energy demand at its iDatacenter in North Caro...

To add to what Andrew has already said, we welcome this first step from Apple of disclosing its current energy demand at its iDatacenter in North Carolina. But full transparency around its electricity consumption is key in order to truly set the bar for the industry.

Greenpeace and Apple are talking about two different things here. Greenpeace is talking about the future total electricity of Apple’s data center in North Carolina. As Gary points out above, Greenpeace, along with others, have asked Apple for this number, but Apple chooses not to discuss or disclose it.

The reason we keep talking about this number is because the future electricity demand of a business as big as Apple sends a signal to utilities for the amount of power the facility will need to keep its customers operating. And in this disclosure Apple will be in a strong position to influence the type of future energy received from the utility.

Apple can lead the industry and steer Duke Energy in the right direction, away from dirty energy and towards renewable energy. And as the cloud grows, as it’s estimated to do, Apple can have a really big impact on helping reduce climate change causing emissions.

Over 100,000 people have already signed our petition asking Apple and other IT leaders to Clean Our Cloud. So . . . what is Apple waiting for?

I was fan of Greenpeace. But your lack in discernment and your unfairness are unacceptable. So what ? Why don't you attack Microsoft (Sky Drive), ...

I was fan of Greenpeace. But your lack in discernment and your unfairness are unacceptable. So what ? Why don't you attack Microsoft (Sky Drive), Google (Google Drive), Adobe (Cloud) ? Just looking for publicity stunt, he ? SHAME ON YOU !!